Utilitarianism allows totalitarianism and war. Kateb, prof. of politics atPrincetonUniversity, 1992 (George, “The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture”, Cornell University Press, p. 11)
I do not mean to take seriously the idea that utilitarianism is a satisfactory replacement for the theory of rights. The well-being (or mere preferences) of the majority cannot override the rightful claims of individuals. In a time when the theory of rights is global it is noteworthy that some moral philosophers disparage the theory of rights. The political experience of this century should be enough to make them hesitate: it is not clear that, say, some version of utilitarianism could not justify totalitarian evil. It also could be fairly easy for some utilitarians to justify any war and any dictatorship, and very easy to justify any kind of ruthlessness even in societies that pay some attention to rights. There is no end to the immoral permissions that one or another type of utilitarianism grants. Everything is permitted, if the calculation is right.
Utilitarianism justifies tyranny of the majority. Maximiano, associate prof. of business ethics at DLSU, 2003 (Jose Mario, “The View from Taft”, Business World, Nov. 6)
According to the utilitarian principle, the correct action, decision or judgment is the one that will produce the greatest net benefits at the lowest net costs for the greatest number of people. Sad to say, this principle has no eyes to see and no brains to know who are those who have less in life, and those who are disadvantaged and less gifted. Like a horse with blinders, utilitarianism automatically focuses on the majority, regardless of socio-economic status. In the application of the utilitarian principle, therefore, it is possible that those who have more in life would benefit more, while those with less would benefit less.The utilitarian principle seems inadequate when applied to situations that involve the basic rights of others. Was the government ethically correct in demolishing some shanties to pave the way for the beautification project specifically for a visiting leader? Similarly, was the government ethically correct to drive away some indigenous tribes to give way for the construction of a dam? While some would see beautification, greening, cleaning and the construction of the dam as benefits, others may see the same as unjust and unfair, and hence as costs, because those projects may at times violate the basic rights of others.
Utilitarianism justifies doing evil in the name of preventing evil – justifies any atrocity for the “greater good”. Norman, prof. of moral philosophy at theUniversityofKentucky, 1995 (Richard, “Ethics, Killing, and War”, p. 207)
Since the waging of war almost invariably involves the deliberate taking of life on a massive scale, it will be immensely difficult to justify. I have argued that utilitarian justifications are not good enough. We cannot justify the taking of life simply by saying that the refusal to take life is likely to lead to worse consequences. An adequate notion of moral responsibility implies that other people's responsibility for evil does not necessarily justify us is doing evil ourselves in order to prevent them. We cannot sacrifice some of our people for the others and claim that we are justified by a utilitarian calculus of lives.
Utilitarianism demands the slaughter of our enemies as part of an impossible attempt to stop death itself.
Beres, prof. of ILaw at Purdue, 1999 (Louis Rene, International Journal on World Peace, No. 3, Vol. 16, 9/1)
Nevertheless, the fact of having been born is a bad augury for immortality, and the human inclination to rebel against an apparently unbearable truth inevitably produces the very terrors from which individuals seek to escape. Desperate to live perpetually, humankind embraces a whole cornucopia of faiths that offer life everlasting in exchange for undying loyalty In the end, such loyalty is transferred from the faith to the state, which battles with other states in what political scientists would describe as a struggle for power, but which is often, in reality, a war between the presumed Sons of Light ("Us") and the presumed Sons of Darkness ("Them"). The advantage to being on the side of the Sons of Light in such a significant contest is nothing less than the prospect of eternal life.
This obsession manifests itself in foreign policy – the perpetual search to destroy our enemies inevitably results in the destruction of all life.
Beres, prof. of ILaw at Purdue, 1999 (Louis Rene, International Journal on World Peace, No. 3, Vol. 16, 9/1)
The State that commits itself to mass butchery does not intend to do evil. Rather, according to Hegel's description in the Philosophy of Right, "the State is the actuality of the ethical Idea." It commits itself to death for the sake of life, prodding killing with conviction and pure heart. A sanctified killer, the State that accepts Realpolitik generates an incessant search for victims. Though mired in blood, the search is tranquil and self-assured, born of the knowledge that the State's deeds are neither infamous nor shameful, but heroic.**65**
He Continues. . .
There are great ironies involved. Although the corrosive calculus of geopolitics has now made possible the deliberate killing of all life, populations all over the planet turn increasingly to States for security. It is the dreadful ingenuity of States that makes possible death in the billions, but it is oin the [*24] expressions of that ingenuity that people seek safety. Indeed, as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms even after the Cold War, 71 the citizens of conflicting States reaffirm their segmented loyalties, moved by the persistent unreason that is, after all, the most indelible badge of modern humankind.
Kateb, prof. of politics at Princeton University, 1992 (George, “The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture”, Cornell University Press, p. 11)
I do not mean to take seriously the idea that utilitarianism is a satisfactory replacement for the theory of rights. The well-being (or mere preferences) of the majority cannot override the rightful claims of individuals. In a time when the theory of rights is global it is noteworthy that some moral philosophers disparage the theory of rights. The political experience of this century should be enough to make them hesitate: it is not clear that, say, some version of utilitarianism could not justify totalitarian evil. It also could be fairly easy for some utilitarians to justify any war and any dictatorship, and very easy to justify any kind of ruthlessness even in societies that pay some attention to rights. There is no end to the immoral permissions that one or another type of utilitarianism grants. Everything is permitted, if the calculation is right.
Utilitarianism justifies tyranny of the majority.
Maximiano, associate prof. of business ethics at DLSU, 2003 (Jose Mario, “The View from Taft”, Business World, Nov. 6)
According to the utilitarian principle, the correct action, decision or judgment is the one that will produce the greatest net benefits at the lowest net costs for the greatest number of people. Sad to say, this principle has no eyes to see and no brains to know who are those who have less in life, and those who are disadvantaged and less gifted. Like a horse with blinders, utilitarianism automatically focuses on the majority, regardless of socio-economic status. In the application of the utilitarian principle, therefore, it is possible that those who have more in life would benefit more, while those with less would benefit less. The utilitarian principle seems inadequate when applied to situations that involve the basic rights of others. Was the government ethically correct in demolishing some shanties to pave the way for the beautification project specifically for a visiting leader? Similarly, was the government ethically correct to drive away some indigenous tribes to give way for the construction of a dam? While some would see beautification, greening, cleaning and the construction of the dam as benefits, others may see the same as unjust and unfair, and hence as costs, because those projects may at times violate the basic rights of others.
Utilitarianism justifies doing evil in the name of preventing evil – justifies any atrocity for the “greater good”.
Norman, prof. of moral philosophy at the University of Kentucky, 1995 (Richard, “Ethics, Killing, and War”, p. 207)
Since the waging of war almost invariably involves the deliberate taking of life on a massive scale, it will be immensely difficult to justify. I have argued that utilitarian justifications are not good enough. We cannot justify the taking of life simply by saying that the refusal to take life is likely to lead to worse consequences. An adequate notion of moral responsibility implies that other people's responsibility for evil does not necessarily justify us is doing evil ourselves in order to prevent them. We cannot sacrifice some of our people for the others and claim that we are justified by a utilitarian calculus of lives.
- Utilitarianism demands the slaughter of our enemies as part of an impossible attempt to stop death itself.
Beres, prof. of ILaw at Purdue, 1999 (Louis Rene, International Journal on World Peace, No. 3, Vol. 16, 9/1)Nevertheless, the fact of having been born is a bad augury for immortality, and the human inclination to rebel against an apparently unbearable truth inevitably produces the very terrors from which individuals seek to escape. Desperate to live perpetually, humankind embraces a whole cornucopia of faiths that offer life everlasting in exchange for undying loyalty In the end, such loyalty is transferred from the faith to the state, which battles with other states in what political scientists would describe as a struggle for power, but which is often, in reality, a war between the presumed Sons of Light ("Us") and the presumed Sons of Darkness ("Them"). The advantage to being on the side of the Sons of Light in such a significant contest is nothing less than the prospect of eternal life.
- This obsession manifests itself in foreign policy – the perpetual search to destroy our enemies inevitably results in the destruction of all life.
Beres, prof. of ILaw at Purdue, 1999 (Louis Rene, International Journal on World Peace, No. 3, Vol. 16, 9/1)The State that commits itself to mass butchery does not intend to do evil. Rather, according to Hegel's description in the Philosophy of Right, "the State is the actuality of the ethical Idea." It commits itself to death for the sake of life, prodding killing with conviction and pure heart. A sanctified killer, the State that accepts Realpolitik generates an incessant search for victims. Though mired in blood, the search is tranquil and self-assured, born of the knowledge that the State's deeds are neither infamous nor shameful, but heroic. **65**
He Continues. . .
There are great ironies involved. Although the corrosive calculus of geopolitics has now made possible the deliberate killing of all life, populations all over the planet turn increasingly to States for security. It is the dreadful ingenuity of States that makes possible death in the billions, but it is oin the [*24] expressions of that ingenuity that people seek safety. Indeed, as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms even after the Cold War, 71 the citizens of conflicting States reaffirm their segmented loyalties, moved by the persistent unreason that is, after all, the most indelible badge of modern humankind.